UK: Don?t Water Down Cluster Ban TreatyUKWatch.net - 23 Apr 2008The Cluster Munition Coalition, which Human Rights Watch cofounded in 2003, is holding a Global Day of Action on April 19 to raise awareness about the dangers of the weapon and to mobilize support for a comprehensive ban treaty. The conference to negotiate the treaty will be held in Dublin on May 19-30, and at least 100 nations are expected to participate. The treaty will ban the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions, and will also require clearance of contaminated areas and assistance to affected communities. ?The UK?s support for this treaty is very significant,? said Steve Goose, director of the Arms Division at Human Rights Watch. ?But its efforts to water down some important provisions in the treaty could end up being very harmful.? Cluster munitions are large weapons that release dozens or hundreds of smaller submunitions. Air-dropped or ground-launched, they cause two major humanitarian problems. First, their indiscriminant wide-area effect virtually guarantees civilian casualties when they are used in or near populated areas. Second, many of the submunitions do not explode on impact as designed but lie around like landmines, causing civilian casualties for months or years to come. The UK used 70 air-launched and 2,100 ground-launched cluster munitions, containing 113,190 submunitions, in southern Iraq in March and April 2003. Human Rights Watch documented dozens of civilian casualties caused by UK clusters in and around Basra. The UK government supports the cluster munitions treaty but is trying to win an exception for its helicopter-launched CRV-7 cluster munition rockets. While the negative humanitarian impact of these weapons is all too easy to predict, the UK has not made a convincing case that these CRV-7 rockets ? which have never been used by the UK in combat ? are essential to the UK?s future war-fighting capability. The CRV-7 cluster rocket itself is not guided, nor are the individual submunitions it contains. Moreover, the submunitions do not have any fail-safe mechanisms to lessen dangers to civilians. The UK recently noted that it has already withdrawn two types of cluster munitions from service because ?neither system has target discrimination capability nor a self-destruction, self-neutralization or self-deactivation capability.? The same is true of the CRV-7. ?The UK wants a special exception for its pet cluster munition rocket system, but those rockets can be as deadly as anything this treaty seeks to prohibit,? said Goose ?By pursuing this exemption, the UK could weaken the treaty substantially.? UK negotiators are also seeking to delete or severely weaken a provision in the draft treaty text that would prohibit a treaty member from assisting in the use of cluster munitions by other governments during joint military operations. The United States, which has not participated at all in the Oslo Process, has nevertheless aggressively lobbied with many governments for its ?interoperability? concerns to be addressed in the treaty, insisting that its ability to use cluster munitions in NATO and other coalition operations not be impeded in any way. ?Nearly all European governments are supporting this treaty because it bans a weapon that creates huge humanitarian suffering,? said Goose. ?If they really believe that to be the case, then NATO shouldn?t be using clusters, either. The UK government should not bend to the bullying of Washington.? The UK has also indicated that it opposes the provisions in the draft treaty text requiring states parties to provide victim assistance and assigning special responsibility for clearing contaminated areas to those who used the weapons. Just over one year ago in Oslo, Norway, 46 states agreed to conclude a treaty by the end of 2008 that bans cluster munitions ?that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.? The treaty was then developed and discussed in subsequent international meetings in Peru, Austria, and New Zealand, as well as regional meetings in Cambodia, Costa Rica, Serbia, Belgium, Zambia, and most recently Mexico (April 16-17). Following the conclusion of the negotiations in Dublin, the treaty will be opened for signature in Oslo on December 2-3, 2008.
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon?s Hidden HandCampaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 23 Apr 2008Summary: Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration?s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found. The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. source: The New York Timesread more
Anticipatory ComplianceUKWatch.net - 23 Apr 2008If you want to know how powerful Rupert Murdoch is, read the reviews of Bruce Dover?s book, Rupert?s Adventures in China. Well, go on, read them. You can?t find any? I rest my case. Dover was Murdoch?s vice-president in China. He took his orders directly from the boss. His book, which was published in February, is a fascinating study of power, and of a man who could not bring himself to believe that anyone would stand in his way(1). So why aren?t we reading about it? Murdoch, Dover shows, began his assault on China with two strategic mistakes. The first was to pay a staggering price – US$525m – for a majority stake in Star TV, a failing satellite broadcaster based in Hong Kong. The second was to make a speech in September 1993, a few months after he had bought the business, which he had neither written nor read very carefully. New telecommunications, he said, ?have proved an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere. ? satellite broadcasting makes it possible for information-hungry residents of many closed societies to bypass state-controlled television channels.? The Chinese leaders were furious. The prime minister, Li Peng, issued a decree banning satellite dishes from China. Murdoch spent the next ten years grovelling. In the interests of business the great capitalist became the communist government?s most powerful supporter. Within six months of Li Peng?s ban, Murdoch dropped the BBC from Star?s China signal. His publishing company, HarperCollins, paid a fortune for a tedious biography of the paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, written by Deng?s daughter. He built a website for the regime?s propaganda sheet, the People?s Daily. In 1997 he made another speech in which he tried to undo the damage he had caused four years before. ?China?, he said, ?is a distinctive market with distinctive social and moral values that Western companies must learn to abide by.? His minions ensured, Dover reveals, that ?every relevant Chinese government official received a copy?. But the satellite dishes remained banned, so he grovelled even more. He described the Dalai Lama as ?a very political old monk shuffling around in Gucci shoes?. His son James claimed that the Western media was ?painting a falsely negative portrayal of China through their focus on controversial issues such as human rights?. Rupert employed his unsalaried gopher Tony Blair to give him special access: in 1999 Blair placed him next to the Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, at a Downing Street lunch. To secure some limited cable rights in southern China, News Corporation agreed to carry a Chinese government channel – CCTV 9 – on Fox and Sky. Murdoch promised to ?further strengthen cooperative ties with the Chinese media, and explore new areas with an even more positive attitude?. Most notoriously, he instructed HarperCollins not to publish the book it had bought from the former governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten. Dover reveals that Murdoch was forced to intervene directly (he instructed the publishers to ?kill the fucking book?) because his usual system of control had broken down. ?Murdoch very rarely issued directives or instructions to his senior executives or editors.? Instead he expected ?a sort of ?anticipatory compliance?. One didn?t need to be instructed about what to do, one simply knew what was in one?s long-term interests.? In this case executives at HarperCollins had failed to understand that when the boss objected to Patten?s views on China it meant that the book was dead. Anticipatory compliance also describes Murdoch?s approach to Beijing. Dover shows that the Chinese leadership never asked for Chris Patten?s book to be banned: they didn?t even know it existed. But when Murdoch killed it, ?our Beijing minders were impressed and the Patten incident marked a distinct warming in the relationship?. The strategy failed. Murdoch was astonished that he couldn?t replicate ?the cosy relationship he enjoyed with Britain?s political Establishment?. For the first time in his later career, he had encountered an organisation more powerful and more determined than he was. He has now retreated from China, after losing at least $1bn. This is a riveting story about two of the world?s most powerful forces. Dover?s British publisher told me ?I thought this was a natural for serialisation. We had the author primed and prepared to come over here. But we had to cancel as we could not raise enough interest. We?ve hit brick walls and we don?t understand why.?(2) The book has been reviewed in the Economist and the Financial Times, but neither the other British newspapers nor the broadcasters have touched it. As far as I can discover, the book has been reviewed by only one Murdoch publication anywhere on earth – the Australian Literary Review – and that was an article of such snivelling sycophancy that you wonder why they bothered(3). The editor of another of News Corporation?s titles, the Far Eastern Economic Review, commissioned a review of Dover?s book, then admitted to contracting ?cold feet? and spiked it(4). But what of the other papers? Why should they appease Murdoch? ?When you see the reaction of the British media to the book,? Bruce Dover tells me, ?one can better understand why in some respects the Chinese so admired Murdoch ? an Emperor who inspires fear in his followers need not raise a hand against them.?(5) He might be right, but I think there is also a general bias against relevance in the review sections. When I worked in faraway countries my books about the tribulations of obscure peoples were comprehensively reviewed. When I came home and wrote Captive State: the Corporate Takeover of Britain, it was ignored. There appears to be an inverse relationship between how hard a book hits and how well it is covered. Paradoxically for a publication which inspires such fear, Bruce Dover?s story sometimes steps back from the brink. He observes that News Corporation never promised the Chinese government favourable coverage; Murdoch undertook only to be ?fair?, ?balanced? and ?objective?. Dover takes these terms at face value, though it is obvious from his account that they were being used as code for sympathetic treatment. His book does not contain News Corporation?s most direct admission: the statement by Murdoch?s spokesman Wang Yukui that ?we won?t do programmes that are offensive in China. ? If you call this self-censorship then of course we?re doing a kind of self-censorship.?(6) He is wrong to suggest that ?Murdoch very rarely issued directives or instructions?. As the testimony by Andrew Neil (formerly the editor of the Sunday Times) before the Lords Communications Committee shows(7), the paramount leader micromanages the editorial content of the newspapers he owns which swing the greatest political weight. But I am sure it is true that anticipatory compliance is Murdoch?s most powerful weapon. I doubt he needed to tell all 247 of his editors to support the invasion of Iraq, but they did(8). He might not even have had to lean on Tony Blair to ensure – as Blair?s former spin doctor Lance Price reveals – that no British minister said ?anything positive about the euro.?(9) Power is sustained not by force but by fear, as everyone seeks to interpret the wishes of his master and to meet them even before he asks. www.monbiot.com References: 1. Bruce Dover, 2008. Rupert?s Adventures in China: how Murdoch lost a fortune and found a wife. Mainstream Publishing. 2. Email from Bill Campbell, 17th April 2008. 3. Mark Day, 2nd April 2008. More than a mogul can bear. Australian Literary Review. 4. Donald Greenlees, 3rd March 2008. Review of Book on Murdoch Is Killed. The New York Times 5. Email from Bruce Dover, 17th April 2008. 6. Agence France Presse, 20th December 2001. Murdoch?s News Corp looks for further China access after TV. 7. Andrew Neil, 23 January 2008. Minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on Communications: Media Ownership and the News. House of Lords. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lduncorr/comms230108ev15.pdf 8. David Harvey, 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism, p35. Oxford University Press. 9. Lance Price, 1st July 2006. Rupert Murdoch is effectively a member of Blair?s cabinet. The Guardian.
Cracking the ContractsUKWatch.net - 23 Apr 2008In January 2003 Middle Eastern Peace Envoy Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, was planning a war. The media meanwhile debated imaginary threats and UN Resolutions; for the most part respecting the taboo that the planned invasion might have something to do with oil. When, nevertheless, Blair was confronted with that suggestion at Prime Minister?s Question Time he decided to, as he put it, ?deal with the conspiracy theory?. If oil were the motive he reasoned, it would be ?infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam? who he said, ?would be delighted to give us access?. And he was right. But the war was never about buying Iraq?s oil; it was about selling it. Five years later the big oil corporations are still waiting for Iraq?s oil fields to open for business. Violence and instability have been one obstacle, but not the main one. After all, oil corporations often operate in hostile environments. As one British official recently put it, ?if you can successfully operate in the Niger Delta, that is a very different benchmark from imagining that Basra needs to be like London or Paris.? The real problem has been persuading Iraqi politicians to enact legislation which would guarantee corporate investments. The Economist called post-invasion Iraq a ?capitalist dream?, but although the occupation forcedly privatised pretty much everything, they were not foolish enough to attempt to privatise Iraq?s most precious resource. Instead, the oil companies and the occupational powers have pushed for Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs), in which the state and the oil corporations ?share? the risk, ownership and profits of Iraq?s oil wealth. But a groundswell of public opinion developed against the oil law, and against PSAs. In December 2006 Iraq?s trade unions released a joint statement opposing ?the handing of authority and control over the oil to foreign companies that aim to make big profits at the expense of the people and to rob Iraq?s national wealth by virtue of unfair, long-term oil contracts?. A year later the head of the Directorate of Licensing and Contracts would lament that ?the political and economic culture and atmosphere in Iraq is not conducive to this contract? . But as opposition grew, so did the pressure from oil corporations and the occupying powers. Only a month after the trade union statement, Washington announced a ?surge? in occupation troops, and a massive escalation in aerial bombardment. Slow movement towards a corporate-friendly oil law was a significant reason behind the new policy, and the passing of the oil law became one of the four ?bench marks? gauging the success of the ?surge? initiative. That bench mark has so far not been met. In February 2007, as more foreign troops flooded into Iraq, the cabinet submitted a new oil law to parliament, but once again it came to nothing. The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), less hindered by public opposition, became as impatient as the occupying powers. In August 2007 it passed its own oil law and immediately began awarding contracts to foreign corporations. Before passing its oil law the KRG had already awarded concessions to several small companies including Turkey?s Petoil, a Turkish/Canadian joint venture of General Enerji and Addax Petroleum, and the Norwegian company DNO. Some of these were granted before the Iraqi Constitution itself was signed, let alone an oil law. With the new law in place the KRG has granted contracts to at least another 20 foreign companies, including Heritage Oil (Canada), Hunt Oil (USA), Sterling Energy (Britain) and Gulf Keystone (Britain), OMV (Austria), Reliance (India), and SK Energy (Korea). Washington?s position on this is not clear. It is known to have opposed independent Kurdish moves in the past. In 2006 US officials met with oil companies to discourage them from dealing separately with the KRG, and Condoleezza Rice met the Kurdish president, Massoud Barzani, to encourage him to cooperate with Baghdad. Washington commented that the Kurdish contracts had ?needlessly elevated tensions?, but according to the New York Times it ?hasn?t leaned very hard on the one American oil company involved, Hunt Oil?. If opposition from Washington was relatively mute, Baghdad was furious. The Natural Resources Minister Hussain al-Shahristani condemned the concessions as illegal and called the companies involved ?opportunists who are seeking an opportunity where they think they can get a high profit?. In January the Iraq government halted its Basra oil exports to South Korea?s SK Energy in response to its newly acquired Kurdish contract and in February it halted its exports to Austria?s OMV. Although not enough to discourage smaller companies who thrive in such niches, these threats are enough to discourage the big oil corporations. Iraq?s greatest reserves are in Basra, and that remains the ultimate prize. Royal Dutch Shell commissioned research into Iraqi Kurdistan?s fields but also has hopes for joint projects in the south in partnership with BHP Billiton. Total and Chevron have both teamed up on projects in the south, and BP has studied the southern Rumaila field which borders Kuwait. None of them want to risk alienating the Iraqi government; rather they have done their best to work on service contracts on existing fields, which although do not yield the enormous profits possible under PSAs, might bring them one step closer to searching for, owning and then selling Iraq?s untapped oil. Today the coveted national oil law seems no closer, but the Kurdish initiative does seem to have forced the central government closer to the oil corporations. In January the Iraqi government invited them to submit documents for a prequalification process pending the eventual planned licensing allocations. Companies involved in the Kurdish contracts were excluded. In February it was announced that as many as 115 companies had registered. The government also announced that Iraq was concluding negotiations for technical support contracts with large oil corporations including BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, Total and Chevron.
“Welcome to the Axis of Evil”—Bolivian President Evo Morales to Paraguayan President-Elect Fernando LugoDemocracy Now - 23 Apr 2008Bolivian President Evo Morales came to New York this week to deliver the keynote address at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Morales became Bolivia’s first indigenous president when he was elected in 2005 with more popular support than any Bolivian leader in decades. Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez had a chance to sit down with President Morales at the Bolivian mission in New York for an interview. Morales discusses issues of world hunger, biofuels and climate change, relations with Paraguayan President-Elect Fernando Lugo, his push to introduce a new constitution in Bolivia, his accusations that the US ambassador is leading a conspiracy against his government, his thoughts on the US presidential elections, and more. [includes rush transcript]
Up the Yangtze: Documentary Takes on Social Impact of Three Gorges Dam in ChinaDemocracy Now - 23 Apr 2008The Three Gorges Dam along China’s Yangtze River is the world’s largest hydroelectric project and is due to be completed in 2009. Widely touted as a feat of modern engineering, the dam was supposed to stop flooding along the river and provide clean energy to fuel China’s economic boom. But it has also gained notoriety as an environmental and human catastrophe. Up the Yangtze is a critically acclaimed new documentary about the social impact of the Three Gorges Dam. We speak with Chinese Canadian filmmaker Yung Chang. [includes rush transcript]
Thousands of Delegates Tackle Climate Change Issues at UN Forum on Indigenous IssuesDemocracy Now - 23 Apr 2008Representatives of the world’s 370 million indigenous people are gathered at the United Nations this week to demand that their voices be included in future talks on climate change. Over 3,000 delegates are attending the seventh session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. We speak with Casey Camp-Horinek, a member of the Ponca Nation of Oklahoma. [includes rush transcript]
The US Role in Haiti’s Food RiotsDemocracy Now - 23 Apr 2008As people around the world continue to protest the soaring prices of basic food items, the World Food Program has described the crisis as a silent tsunami. The head of the Food and Agriculture Organization blamed the current global food crisis on ?inappropriate? policy decisions over the past two decades. Nowhere is this more clear than in Haiti, where hungry people are rioting in the streets because they cannot afford to buy rice. Haiti imports most of its rice from the United States, which in turn remains heavily subsidized. We speak with human rights lawyer, Bill Quigley. [includes rush transcript]
Headlines for April 24, 2008Democracy Now - 23 Apr 2008Clinton, Obama Set Sights on Indiana, Senate GOPers Block Pay Discrimination Bill, House Votes to Block Admin Cuts of Medicaid, Top Iraq Generals Get Promoted, Israeli Blockade Could Halt UN Shipments to Gaza, Israel: Bush Secretly Endorsed Settlement Expansion, Syria Says Israel Has Offered to Return Golan, ALBA Leaders Launch Joint Food Effort, Survey: 60% of EPA Scientists Witness Political Interference, CIA Holds 7,000 Docs on Secret Prisons, Interrogations, US Food Chains to Ration Rice Sales, Slain Palestinian Journalist Remembered in Gaza
This land was theirsElectronic Intifada - 23 Apr 2008rr r r r rr r rr r rr r rr rr rrr rIn my name, and in the name of Jewish people throughout the world, an indigenous population was almost completely expelled. Village names have been removed from the map, houses blown up, and new forests planted. In Arabic, this is called the Nakba, or catastrophe. In Israel, this is called “independence.” Hannah Mermelstein comments.
Israel suspends family visits to prisonersElectronic Intifada - 23 Apr 2008rr r r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr rrr rJERUSALEM/GAZA, 22 April (IRIN) – For families in the Gaza Strip with sons or daughters in Israeli jails, the past 11 months have been especially hard, as they could no longer visit their imprisoned relatives and have only had contact through brief written messages. “This issue is a humanitarian concern for us, for the families and the prisoners,” said Katharina Ritz, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Jerusalem.
